Back to IndieWire

Anatomy of a Release: Roadside Attractions’ Redford-Starrer ‘All Is Lost’

Anatomy of a Release: Roadside Attractions' Redford-Starrer 'All Is Lost'

On opening day at Sundance, snubbed Best-Actor Oscar candidate Robert Redford’s comments criticizing Roadside Attractions’ handling of “All Is Lost” are still rippling through the independent community, much as Roadside would like them to go away.

Did Roadside Attractions do anything wrong in distributing the film? Compare Roadside’s overall release plan to similar English-language limited-release films and the company did about as well as it realistically could have. Distributors make myriad decisions positioning their prime releases–release date, marketing, theater selection, expansion plans–but the initial grosses more often than not give a strong indication of a film’s true potential. “All Is Lost” lacked traction from the start. Despite this, Roadside still managed to get the film played in enough theaters and accumulate enough gross to maximize its potential.

“All Is Lost” opened in six New York/Los Angeles theaters on October 18, 2013 for a gross of $93,000 and a per screen average of just under $16,000. As of January 16, 2014, the film had grossed $6.1 million total. Exterior factors had some negative impact on specific weeks, but given how the film launched, its longer-term performance shows that Roadside worked hard to overcome some strong initial limitations for their film. (Roadside declined a request to speak about Redford’s comments.)

Here’s a breakdown of Roadside’s key decisions compared to similar releases:

1. Release plan: Roadside acquired “All Is Lost” before production, not after completion (partner Lionsgate owns a percentage of the company), so they controlled the timing of the film’s exposure from the start. The film debuted at Cannes as an out-of-competition entry in the main selection in May, 2013. Limited films have opened immediately after their showings — “Moonrise Kingdom” very successfully in 2012, “The Tree of Life” less well–but a film needs a big head of steam in order to justify this, which “All Is Lost,” though well-received at Cannes, did not have. 

A summer opening ran the risk of being forgotten by the awards season (like “The Butler” or “Blue Jasmine,” which didn’t land a Best Picture nomination). Clearly the way to maximize advance anticipation for this film was end-of-summer festival attention. The film made its North American premiere at Telluride, where Redford received a tribute with much media coverage. They skipped Toronto (so did Cannes entry “Nebraska”), showed at the New York Film Festival later in September, and at Mill Valley in early October. Late September through December is the home ground of most awards contenders and any serious-minded, adult-oriented specialized releases. Roadside scheduling that time of year was logical and appropriate.

2. Specific date: They chose October 18. The weekends from mid-October through Christmas (though not the one closest to Halloween) usually see one or more new high-end contenders open in at least the two largest cities. The choice of date depends on how close to their festival bookings a distributor wants to be (in this case the New York Film Festival), the competition in the market at the time, how long a run they expect to be able to sustain (this involves how important Thanksgiving and Christmas playtime is and a film’s ability to compete when far more films are playing and higher grosses are needed to hold over).

That weekend “All Is Lost” went against two other limited openings: “12 Years a Slave” (Fox Searchlight) and “Kill Your Darlings” (Sony Pictures Classics). “12 Years” opened a bit wider — 19 theaters in several markets, as it played to both the usual specialized audiences as well as some theaters in African-American communities. Sundance favorite “Darlings” had a conventional two-city, four-theater release. “12 Years” received the best reviews of the year, better even than “All Is Lost” (respective Metacritic scores are 97 and 87). But no question “12 Years” received far more initial attention. It is possible that opening the same date did mitigate some of the impact of “Lost”‘s great reviews, but the two cities in which it opened have tens of thousands of potential ticket buyers for a small pool of high-impact, upscale films. And then if a film gets any sort of good response, that can be made up for in later weeks.

One release date factor in the months before Oct. 18 (the requirements of booking top theaters and coordinating marketing are determined months ahead) was how well two other wide-release films, both ironically overlapping with the content of “All Is Lost,” would perform both critically and in ticket sales. “Gravity,” like “All Is Lost” a tale of harrowing individual survival, and “Captain Phillips,” set on the open sea with a heroic lead character, opened in the two weeks before October 18, and likely provided more competition initially in those two cities than anyone could anticipate. But wait any longer, and things were only going to get worse.

3. Initial release pattern: Roadside booked this at six top initial theaters which all require long-term ties with a distributor and credibility for delivering significant-grossing films. With this comes the caveat that per screen averages (PSA) far above what most theaters across the country do first week are required, and come with the risk that if they don’t happen, a film’s reputation and ability to get more theaters could be damaged. But it’s a risk than any distributor handling “All Is Lost” would have thought necessary to take, and Roadside did its job. The two city pattern, though not as de rigeur as it once was, still makes sense for films that need reviews to build national interest and aren’t obvious candidates for the extra marketing costs opening initially in multiple cities requires. And with PSAs always lower when more cities open and possibly lowering the impact (media and otherwise) of a new film, going beyond the two cities initially would have been harmful to the film’s future.

4. Expansion: Here’s where things varied a bit, though not radically from the norm. Roadside added 82 theaters in about 15 new markets (and expanded some in their initial two), above what the average second week expansion would be. This in part allowed them to get elevated review attention in several other cities that had already shown “12 Years” the previous Friday, and with little else opening pre-Halloween, also meant less immediate competition. So if anything, this improved the film’s presence and should have given it a better shot of awareness in those markets.

They then quickly expanded further — to 130, 399 and 483 in the following three weeks. Why? I suspect the calendar had much to do with this, particularly in the later weeks. Any specialized film that is going to be able to hold through Thanksgiving needs to have stronger than usual grosses with all the new films opening at the broader range of theaters needed to reach these totals. So going slower ran the risk that if the film was grossing lower than hoped, it would have trouble getting anything close to the depth into the market the film managed to find in the previous weeks. It did occur against the “12 Years” expansion, which again likely had some impact, and “Dallas Buyers Club” also had an expedited release plan starting on Nov. 1. But competition always exists, and if a film has big appeal, it usually can find its share of customers irrespective of what else is out there. (An industry maxim also suggests that moviegoing breeds more moviegoing, so a moderately busy period might not so automatically be a negative.) In any event, they added to the gross total more than likely they would have by going slower.

5. Comparison to similar releases: Trying to figure out whether Roadside handled the film close to its potential requires understanding the context of their decisions and then comparing actual results. I looked at English-language initially limited-release films between late June and the end of the year (“All Is Lost”‘s window) for the past two years. Then I checked which of these opened in nine or fewer theaters in the two cities and had an initial PSA of over $10,000 with an eventual gross of over $1 million. There were only 23, including big studio major year-end releases like “Zero Dark Thirty” and “American Hustle” that never were considered to be lower-gross niche films like “All Is Lost” and most of the rest.

I then took the initial theaters’ gross and PSA and compared it to their ultimate gross. Why? Because normally there is a correlation between opening gross and eventual performance, affected of course by vagaries including word of mouth but more significantly the level of support a distributor sustains for a film. It isn’t unusual for a film to have its further expansion cut back because of disappointing results, or expanded further because of initial success, by studios pushing hard for awards and using heavily advertised additional theaters as part of their campaigns. What a distributor who hopes to sustain long term success does is to try to find some medium between maximizing a total gross while keeping their costs to a level justified by the response.

The reality is that “All Is Lost” had a very weak initial response in New York and Los Angeles. Its PSA just under $16,000 and total gross of $93,000 was considered disappointing compared to the acclaim, Redford’s name and potential awards ahead. It was slightly reduced by its six rather than more common four theater run, which needs to be accounted for in any analysis. But the result was a PSA below nearly all other films surveyed. When comparing the total gross (higher because of six total theaters), it still ranked in the bottom third.

Based on this, the film would have been expected to attain an eventual gross of $3 to 5 million. The year before, “The Sessions” (Fox Searchlight) opened in four of the same theaters with a PSA of $28,400 and a gross of $113,000, both considerably better than “All Is Lost.” (Searchlight spent far more heavily.) It ended up with the same gross, $6 million. Last spring, the Redford-directed and starring (along with a large cast of well-knowns) “The Company You Keep,” (Sony Pictures Classics) opened in five theaters with worse reviews and managed a PSA of $26,300 and a gross $132,000 — and that film, despite playing in more theaters (807 at its widest) only managed to get to $5.1 million.

Among other awards-oriented films with an even higher profile and considerably more success, at least in revenues if not profits, the ratio of initial PSA and total gross (for “All Is Lost,” multiples of 380 and 65 respectively) show that Roadside had a respectable playoff despite the weak initial gross. “Beasts of the Southern Wild” grossed a bit more than double what “Lost” has done ($13.2 million) after opening roughly three times as well, with slightly lower multiples, and Fox Searchlight has been showered with praise for its work (Oscar nominations helped). More recently, CBS Films has shown huge commitment to “Inside Llewyn Davis,” which had a huge opening a few weeks ago ($404,000 in four theaters). 

Near the end of its run, having failed to score key nods, “Inside Llewyn Davis”” is now approaching $10 million, with multiples so far of 98 and 24 –far, far below “Lost” and not getting much higher despite at least double the outlays of advertising, particularly late in the race. Among all films surveyed, “Lost” ranked in the top quarter of ultimate performers, and several of the others (“Philomena,” “The Book Thief” and “Mandela” leading the way) played in many more theaters, adding to their grosses, with substantially higher ad budgets that will cut down on profits, if any, with only “Philomena” likely to wind up in the black thanks to awards attention).

What Roadside didn’t get is the higher gross total or the Best Actor nomination. But based on the initial gross, it’s hard to argue that they did anything wrong. A different release date wouldn’t have guaranteed a much higher opening, and might have made getting dates more difficult, thus reducing the gross. It is hard to see any scenario in which the gross, short of expending massively higher advertising costs and going into a 1,000+ theater break, that this could have yielded much more.

Roadside elevated the film via festival attention, chose the right time of year to open, and landed great reviews and a Redford Best Actor win from the New York Film Critics Circle. But the public, while support from Roadside remained high, never embraced the film. This suggests that resistance based on mixed word of mouth kept the performance lower. And a lack of enthusiasm from SAG and the Academy actors led to the Oscar snub, not lack of awareness or interest. By contrast “Nebraska” has only grossed about $9 million so far, benefiting from holiday playtime, but obtained six nominations. 

This is a case where the operation was a success–but the patient did not thrive as well as hoped.

This Article is related to: Box Office and tagged , , , , , ,



So lets review. Roadside controlled the release from start. Yet release dates and timing were part of (if not a lot of) the problem. Isn't that where Roadside's expertise is supposed to be?


The final verdict on all of this comes from the news that JC Chandor has signed a distribution deal for his next film with A24 today. Roadside's loss is their gain. I can't image many other promising young auteurs will want to work with Roadside after this either.


Not showing the film at TIFF was a crucial mistake. This is the one that everyone follows and more stars and critics were there than anywhere garnering the most publicity. Early words of praise and impressions of the films come from here. Essentially films are launched here and I am sure others such as myself decide what I am looking forward to seeing based on what we hear from TIFF. Are there any other movies where there is only one actor in the entire film and it absolutely holds your attention and captivates you? This is no small feat. This and other impressions could put this movie on a must see list.

Seth Willenson

Good article

Redford's comments are unfortunate self centered and naive since Roadside made a great effort to support the film
Its hard for a star and central figure of independent films like Redford to understand the change of his appeal in both commercial movies and specialty films where has lost a lot
of the audience
He has delivered great performances in commercial vehicles from ThreeDays of the Condor to
All the Presidents Men and of course Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid etc. These were all a long time ago

He has used his star power for good causes but Sundance doesn't equate contemporary star appeal .

Unfortunately you can't create want to see.

The bar has risen with the tremendous number of films opening, the decline of critics and
newspapers and of course the extreme expenditure of marketing dollars

Good job Roadside


This analysis does not take into account the fact that Roadside had initially planned for a much faster expansion (which they promoted for a month or so as a nationwide open on October 25). Because they backed out of this, they lost some of their best theater bookings in the crowded fall season. In my hometown, the largest and most impressive theater at our local Landmark was prepared for a minimum 3-week engagement starting October 25, but when Roadside pulled back on its initial expansion plans, they had to find other bookings. A month or so later, when Lost hit town, Landmark could only make room for "an exclusive one-week engagement" in a small screening room in its secondary theater, and by then much of the interest in the film had dissipated regardless.

It seems many in other cities have similar stories. I don't blame Redford for being disappointed. Roadside could've gotten on the map with this release, and they bungled it.


And the title is a downer.


One must look at the fact that just a year ago we got Life of Pi, which has a similar stranded at sea premise. That film played far and wide, and this just seemed like a VOD version of that film. Also, a distributor can raise awareness but the star has to promote the film too. That being said the newer actors who scored noms this year got so based on their performances not politics. It is sad to see RR take such a stance. It's beneath the politics he mentioned


One must look at the fact that just a year ago we got Life of Pi, which has a similar stranded at sea premise. That film played far and wide, and this just seemed like a VOD version of that film. Also, a distributor can raise awareness but the star has to promote the film too. That being said the newer actors who scored noms this year got so based on their performances not politics. It is sad to see RR take such a stance. It's beneath the politics he mentioned

Michael Harpster

good analysis. Cohen knows what he is doing. The opening was soft. But the real clue is in the prior film,THE COMPANY WE KEEP-when Sony expanded and got up to about 800 runs-it fell flat. So with a soft opening and poor response to Redford 's prior film in expansion Cohen made the right call. More than likely they spent less than 2.5 so they are positive coming out of theatrical. Contrast to Sony- who probably spent closer to 4 with the expanison to 800+ screens and grossed onky a less than 6.


First rate analysis. Roadside did an excellent job. I attended the Academy screening of the film and while it was evident that the viewers liked the film, liked Redford it was not a slam dunk. This year with the Academy, the competition for Best Actor is insane. Far too many excellent choices and just 5 slots. Likely Redford (and Hanks) missed out by a handful of votes. The last spot or two were likely super tight. To blame Roadside is nuts. They do such an amazing job most of the time would be so unfair.


Seeing reports that Redford himself was reluctant to make appearances. Then that isn't Lionsgate or Roadside's fault.


Saw 'Stories We Tell' at Telluride in 2012 and again in theater in 2013. Still think about it. Far superior to any of the documentary nominees (which I've also seen).

Redford's performance & 'All is Lost' were much better than Dern & 'Nebraska'. But I saw Dern promoted everywhere with little mention of Redford in print or on-line.

Your article didn't compare the amount of money spent promoting the films. You've got to spend money to make money. Tom Jonsey's post may explain something. Profit over promotion?

Stan Ceede

Wonderful analysis. Very enlightening. To some extent, no one knows anything in any aspect of the film business. Redford should recognize that the audience considers him irrelevant and should shoulder some of the blame for the failure of "All Is Lost." He certainly did not do much to promote the film.

Tom Jonsey

Let's be honest – Roadside had three good films that didn't get the traction – or the awards – they should have – "All is Lost," "Stories We Tell" and "In A World."

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *